Republicans vs Democrats, what gives?

HaAGen DaZS · Post by **HaAGen DaZS** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:26 pm

i am not in that opinion at all, pebkac. as i said, i'm pretty sure many of the rich earned it - whether by sheer luck of a bright idea, or by working their lives away.

can i ask where you got those stastistics?
also- have you have you looked at the numbers? while the rich may pay that percentage, they are still better off.

regardless, this is another thread, so im going to stop posting on this matter.

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:39 pm

It's definitely a sticy wicket. The data is from the IRS for fiscal year 2000 and I got it from www.taxfoundation.org. This data is before the cuts. Here's a link to 2002's data.

they are still better off.

Are they? You put forth that they work their lives away. That is, in many cases, the truth. Would you rather be a relatively satisfied lower class family guy or a thrice-divorced upper class guy whose children hate you for never being around?

HaAGen DaZS · Post by **HaAGen DaZS** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:55 pm

Pebkac wrote:It's definitely a sticy wicket. The data is from the IRS for fiscal year 2000 and I got it from www.taxfoundation.org. This data is before the cuts. Here's a link to 2002's data.

they are still better off.
Are they? You put forth that they work their lives away. That is, in many cases, the truth. Would you rather be a relatively satisfied lower class family guy or a thrice-divorced upper class guy whose children hate you for never being around?

how many of them actually care about not having a family?

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:21 am

Pebkac wrote:It's definitely a sticy wicket.

LOL i've not heard that expression for donkys years.

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:17 am

Heh, and I spelled "sticky" incorrectly too.

And Haggy, whatever their motivations, people are people. I'll bet more than you think would have serious regret later in life.

Sickone · Post by **Sickone** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:40 am

"If in your 20's you're not a liberal, you have no heart.
If in your 40's you're not a conserative, you have no brain"

After watching for 25 years, and looking a history.

The Dems like to throw money at problems, as some have mentioned. Of course they like to throw MY MONEY at problems. Some are almost socialistic.

Reps tend to assume that if you minimize government, business will grow and solve most other issues.

This is of course a very simple view.

A middle of the road moderate, no matter which party is the best choice.

As far as the election... bush may suck, but no where as bad as kerry. Compare Kerry's public comments/speaches to his actual action/voting record... the gyuy is a fucken snake. Worst of a;ll he is not even good at being a snake.

Deadmeat · Post by **Deadmeat** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:02 am

Kevin, I just love how you come out of the closet from time to time and put things in proper perspective. My father explained it pretty much the same way 40 some years ago. The Dems believe in more government control, the Reps believe in less.

And I'm with ya all the way on your last remarks. I'm a conservative Rep who isn't real crazy about Bush and his cronies, but the thought of Kerry in office just scared the live'n s**t outa me.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:26 am

but hasn't it been the Republicans who have been introducing stuff like the Patriot act? That says to me that they are for maximising government control, not minimising.

...or is this just a one off thing, and the Rebublicans are normally all for LESS government control?

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:05 am

Deadmeat wrote:My father explained it pretty much the same way 40 some years ago. The Dems believe in more government control, the Reps believe in less.

The perceptions of the parties 40 and even 20 years ago might have had some merit, but there's evidence it's no longer so simple. Offhand, I can recall the current administration trying to change states' laws, amend the constitution on gay marriage (which I believe is a states issue), run up the "biggest defecit ever", and instantiate the somewhat alarming Patriot Act. So republicans aren't all about small government and small spending anymore.

I think the primary difference is just where the spending and interference efforts are focused. The perceptions these days are that Dems seem to want to spend and interfere with touchy-feely issues like education, welfare, health care, etc. Reps seem to be more focused on military spending and interfering by trying to whip the country into alignment with traditional Christian morals.

Of course there are a lot of exceptions to these generalizations. I personally am financially and militarily conservative, but socially and ethically liberal. Makes it hard to choose from the big 2 parties.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:16 am

it's like
dem's = tax and spend
repub's = tax less and spend

Yea, Yea, I know without the defense spending and homeland security the disgressionary spending was reduced by Bush but I'll wait until I see the bottom line actually go down before I sing the praises of that distinction.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:56 pm

great post geng. I completely agree. Republican definitions are changing. There is a lot of fiscal irresponsibility and growth of government.

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:32 pm

Birds, that's because President Bush has adopted the Clinton Strategy (TM). Whenever the electorate seems to lean toward the other party's proposals, come up with your own Lite version and claim the strategy as your own.

Maybe Bush is a lot smarter that way than folks give him credit for. While the bulk of Republicans are clinging to their core ideals, Bush gets out there and offers some Democrate Lite ideas, calls it "compassionate conservativism", and wins the White House not once but twice. Hey, it worked for William Clinton. Why not for George Bush?

Funny thing, the very "healing" that Democrats are calling for, Bush has been offering all along, in the form of adopting Democrat-type spending policies and "worry about the deficit later", with "we'll cut it in half in five years". WOW, that is like right out of the Democratic Handbook of 1992.

And yet, Kerry offered the exact same thing, right? Well, almost. Kerry promised to cut it in half in four years. Problem was, I didn't believe he'd actually do it. All I've ever seen Democrats do is spend MORE on entitlements and LESS on defense. The wrong mix, in my view.

- Sirian

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:41 pm

Facts don't lie, but people do. Check your figures on spending and deficits. I don't want to crap on this thread anymore, so please take the response in the healing thread where I have more intensely argued my position.

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:46 pm

Birdseye wrote:Facts don't lie, but people do.

Sophistry.

Your recently developed habit of spouting pithy slogans bodes poorly for our future exchanges.

- Sirian

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:46 pm

Sorry, I get the feeling you haven't looked at annual US budget reports from 1976-2004

I don't know what to say to you because the numbers don't lie. Ronald Reagan and Bush increased spending and drove up deficits. Bush increased the size of government. Your statements are not supported by numbers

If you'd like me to post the numbers, I have no problem with that. I figure you are capable of a google search, though.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:16 pm

Sirian, what birds said about people lying, I have experienced first-hand. and it can be quite ugly. If you want I'll tell you a little story. but not here. it's not the place for it.

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:01 pm

Ferno, I'm not disputing that people lie.

Facts don't tell tales. When gathered, they form into evidence. However, presenting only some of the relevant facts can easily deceive, easily lead to faulty conclusions. It is far easier to lie with facts than it is to lie with falsehoods. The most dangerous lie is the half-truth.

What is sophistry? It's meaningless talk intended to sound clever. "Facts don't lie, people do" is an empty phrase. I have noticed several such phrases in Birdseye's recent posts. They are mixed in with the intelligent commentary and the opinions. I really do not intend to argue with sophistry. If Birdseye wants to converse, I'm willing. It could be fun. I might learn something. I might renew old connections. I might pass some time doing something interesting. If I find none of these benefits in the exchange, then I am not likely to continue.

I'm not here to lecture anybody. Nor do I intend to be lectured to. We can talk -- or not. I'm good either way.

- Sirian

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:05 am

http://www.littlepiggy.net/deficit/index.php
http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-percentage.png

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=148.html

Make your case, the numbers I see point to republican deficit problems larger than democratic deficit problems.

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:54 pm

someone pls tell me how republicans have lessened government? just a few points is what i'm asking for, something to mull over.

Suncho · Post by **Suncho** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:47 am

IsAB wrote:As i understand, the current administration is republican, has their administration kept up with the "large deficit spending, military build-up. For privitization of many common services."

We actually had a surplus before this administration. As for military build up... just look at Iraq.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:00 am

If I recall correctly, GWB increased the size of gov.